liszt:

okay okay, i know many of his technical pieces are stictly show off, mainly involving the paraphrases and pieces from his younger years, but:

i look at most of the 'dazzle' as nothing more than extreme emotion coming out through his music. he starts with a simple melody, and repeats it, each time getting harder and more complicated, from a technical viewpoint; but musically it builds suspense and each time gets more and more intense - sometimes my body wants to tremble with ecstasy at the climaxes in his music, or i get tears at the depths of the rumbling basses and lonely chords. like the left hand near the very end of the totentanz: while the right hand is playing lightning fast scales up and down the keyboard, it's drawing out hellish blunt chords....it's very showy, but how can you not be affected emotionally by it? what was he thinking when he wrote something like that?

i'm just looking to see what people think about liszt and the difficult music he wrote - and composers who wrote like that in general, like ravel and scriabin for example. do you despise this sort of music because it seems to be nothing more than "show off stuff"? :rolleyes:

Generally, I couldn't agree with you more, seeing as I am a Liszt fanatic. Some of my favorite moments include the last two or three minutes of the b minor sonata (it's depictive of nothing else than unconditional love, of that I'm convinced), the middle section of the Norma fantasy, the beginning of Valle d'Obermann, and the ending of the Sonetto 104.

However, I can easily see the argument that is frequently made about Liszt's music.

Take some of the "greatest" hits albums of Liszt's music that are out there in Camelot music, Borders, Barnes & Nobles, etc. Most of them will include La Campanella, a Hungarian Rhapsody or two, maybe Les Preludes (symphonic poem), the e-flat concerto, and the staple Liebestraum. What we have from these albums is an image of Liszt that is nothing but bravura, which is a gross disservice to say the least. They take his most marketable and crowd-pleasing music and present that.

Ask yourself - how many people not too keen on classical music (and maybe looking for some introductory material) would patiently sit through the b minor sonata, rather than an etude? Not too many. It's almost like shoving them Mahler 2nd or Beethoven 9th in its entirety. This is also why Chopin's music is generally much more preferred than Liszt's - the forms are smaller and the music is more accessible. Even in his larger works like the sonatas and ballads, Chopin's music is simply easier to listen to. Liszt requires far more effort.

It's unfortunate that Liszt is an acquired taste, and even more unfortunate that many people don't enjoy it, but to each their own. Same thing with Bach - we all do our duties and play Bach like good pianists, but I still feel that his music is underappreciated, and all of the passion and intensity he puts into it is somehow ignored in performance.

Brendan

I agree with ALL the above and would also mention Liszt's extraordinary range. His music is far more daring, experimental and wide ranging than Chopins. Of course he did have a longer life with which to experiment, but unpopularity meant nothing to him if the music (no matter how hellish, jarring or atonal) had integrity. As Brendan points out it's only his popular stuff that people really get to hear.

Also the man has been dreadfully misrepresented by various people at various times and for the worst of reasons. In truth there was a small period, when at the absolute peak of his fame, he became a bit of a premadonna (and with all the adulation, who could honestly say they'd have done differently). But he was young and this was a very short lived phase. His real character and enduring qualities were unquestionably his obsession with artistic integrity, his humility, his insecurity about his own artistic talent and his utterly selfless generosity to all around him (which was often abused).

I'm gonna be good. I'm gonna bite my tongue.

ok... maybe liszt's music is like that but definitely not Ravel's... a lot of Ravel is technically very difficult, but he didn't intentionally write it just to show off... he was more of a composer than a virtuoso pianist... in fact when you play Ravel you should play in such a manner that the audience is not perceptive of the difficulty... because in Ravel it's more the music and the harmony than the virtuosity... i can only think of 2 Ravel works that are meant to be virtuosic: the Jeux d'eau (tribute to LISZT) and the Gaspard de la Nuit (don't blame him his father just passed away at this time)... there is some easier music though, like the Prelude and the Menuet sur le nom d'Haydn... and none of the glimmer of a Ravel piece ever wears off like Liszt's... you can just listen to it over and over, play it over and over and never get bored of it...

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: magnezium ]

What about the Left-Hand concerto? That piece is harder than anything Liszt ever came up with. Let's also not forget the five pieces from Miroirs, La Valse, or Le Tombeau de Couperin. I know many people (myself included!) who won't even touch Le Tombeau because of that Toccata.

As for the Jeax d'eau thing, I've played both Liszt's and Ravel's. First off, Ravel's is twice as hard because, as you correctly pointed out, Ravel was more considered just with writing piano music than writing piano music that fits well under the hand. His piano writing is frequently very awkward and puts the pianist in uncomfortable positions, whereas Liszt, who knew the keyboard inside and out, writes in the most pianistic way possible.

Next, I think that Liszt's isn't a showpiece at all, but a genuine attempt to use the piano's resources to portray something in nature - impressionism 30 years too early. How boring would any water piece be if it were just slow arpeggios up and down the keyboard? Liszt's genius in this composition lies in his manipulation of many technical devices - repeated notes, tremoli, hands together scales and arpeggios, left hand trills - to represent the many different shapes that water takes in a fountain. There was really nothing else like it (or at least nothing else as successful, in my opinion) at the time it was written. Ravel paid homage to him not only in Jeax d'eau, but also in Ondine and Une Barque sur l'Ocean.

Edit:

I can listen to Liszt's music over and over again and never get tired of it.

Brendan

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

ok there's only two things i can answer in that post... first about the left-hand concerto... that was written in the second half of Ravel's life, after World War I... in this stage of his life he did not return to the piano often, and when he did he wrote barbaric, militant stuff like the left-hand concerto...

secondly about the awkward hands thing... Ravel had rather small hands, which really is something every pianist would dread... but the strength of his hands and the extraordinary length of his thumbs made up for it... generally, whatever he wrote for his "odd" hands would never fit with most of us, whereas liszt i think had rather advantageous hands...

my last note: about Ondine... Ondine isn't just about water and modelling on Liszt... Ondine was based on a poem, and from what i remember it was about a guy sitting next to a window while it's raining outside... he stares into the drops on the window pane and this Ondine (sea-nymph) appears and beckons him to follow her... in the end he doesn't and she vanishes abruptly (recall the "sans ralentir" ending)... this is more about Ravel's fantasy world than about liszt and his waterfalls... remember that Ravel was always interested in mechanics and fantasy and his house was full of strange things... if i remember correctly his piano had figurines on them... so although liszt's ghost is somewhat present here, the more significant thing about Ondine is the fantasy...

about the rest of the pieces you mentioned, they are technically very challenging yes, but my opinion is that they have to be that way in order to portray those images... i don't think Ravel thought "i want to write something difficult that i can show off with" but rather "the best way to do this is by playing this"... liszt's thoughts however are rather obvious...

oh my goodness this is the longest post i've ever written... if you find this whole thing a total bunch of crap, feel free to flame me for wasting your time... i am after all an amateur who can't play liszt or ravel...=[

ok this reall really is my last last note...=]



Chopin's music may be easy to listen to for the amateur listener, but for those who have a greater insight into classical music and especially piano music, you will realize that there's more than meets the eye... a lot of pianists today simply bash out Chopin at every recital without analysing each work they play to the fullest... the result is that all you hear is a melody... this is really an injustice... you really have to play Chopin for a long time and listen to a lot of Chopin and really analyse, before you can bring out the inner qualities and subtle nuances that make Chopin Chopin... what makes this harder today is all the blurring that many pianists have done over the years... sigh...

i get the feeling that this is turning into a fruitless arguement if it isn't already...
anyway, why is it that liszt's music should be played just to show how hard it is? of course this is dependant on who is playing, it's not my fault if more attention is paid by a performer to the difficulties of a piece rather than the musicality. after reading very much on liszt's life, it's easy to see that he pushed music as far as he could, just listen to the whole of the third book of annees de pelerinage. or nuages gris...i'm not sure what version of the transcendental etudes everyone is familiar with, if at all, but try listening to arrau's, and maybe you can see more pianism than showmanship in the music being played. of course they are difficult, but they are etudes after all. they are some of the most intense music i've ever heard, not because i listen in shock at how hard they must be to play, but because of what liszt spins out of tremolos or crossing hands or arppeggios. i think i've made a point for this post, my brain is starting to hurt...

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: Rodion ]

:p this is exactly the point i'm trying make about liszt, my previous post was put up the exact same time as your's, magnezium, so i just read yours, but you said exactly what i'm trying to say about liszt, only about ravel....

okay it's my last one i promise, but i agree 100 percent with what you say about chopin, magnezium, and i feel that the same attention should be placed on the musicality of liszt's music, not the technique of it....which unfortunately isn't usually the case.....okay i think i'm done...now my brain hurts......

i've been listening to liszt over and over and over for about 8 years, and i'm still not sick of it

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: Rodion ]

Why would I do that? I don't really appreciate the jab, either. I wasn't bragging that I've played those pieces - I was just trying to offer the perspective that I've spent time studying them and thought that I could offer some insight about each piece.

I also didn't say that Chopin's music was trite - I said that I felt it was easier to listen to. It is a crime that some pianists just play thre pretty line, and one that Artur Rubenstein fought bitterly against. There's some great contrapuntal material that goes on in his music, but for my tastes it doesn't really take me anywhere. I just feel like the writing could be more varied in its style.

You're absolutely right about Ravel's influences of fantasy and the macabre - Bertrand's poems are the prime inspiration for the whole set; I was just saying that the pianistic template came from Liszt.

A good parallel between Ravel's piano writing is Franck's piano writing. Franck had huge hands, being able to reach a 12th. In almost all of his music the poor pianist is constantly stretching 10ths and 11ths. In this sense, it's unpianistic because it's tailored only for one type of hand, just like Ravel's. Good piano writing will easily fit anyone's hands (also Rachmaninoff, Mozart, and Chopin, as well as Liszt).

I'm sorry if my post came off as conceited; I certainly didn't intend that.

Brendan

the most haunting thing i can think of right now, is the opening G's of the liszt b minor sonata........or melancholy.........

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: Rodion ]

oh no i'm getting bashed by a whole bunch of liszt fans... hehe...=] Ravelians where are you?? =] no just kidding... i think we all have our opinions and i should respect all of yours... maybe i haven't listened to or played enough liszt... or maybe i'm musically not mature enough to appreciate liszt's music...

and Brendan: I didn't say you were bragging!! =] and the Chopin thing had nothing against you... it was a general comment...=]

ok i'm going to buy a Liszt CD... any pianist recommendations?

Ok, after reading all the comments in this post (and finally registering for the new forum system), I felt I had to jump in. Magnezium, in regard to your post about Ondine, I have to agree with you here. It strikes me as exactly what the poem by Bertrand describes, and I can't stop listening to it. I don't mean to offend all the Liszt people out there (and believe me, there are things by Liszt that I love), but Ondine strikes me as much more interesting than Les Jeux d'eau... But I've always been a fan of non-traditional harmony and its amazing the way Ondine "flows". It truly is unique in the repetory.

Regards,

Jerry

Magnezium,

I don't agree with your conclusions about Liszt (I can't honestly see a lot of insight in them :() but that aside if you want to buy some CD's try:

Ogdon, Horowitz, Richter and Howard.

i would have to warn you about the howard, some of the cd's are wonderful, and some of them really aren't....i can't blame him, there must be 70 or 80 cd's he's made for his liszt project.....try arrau too, and jeno jando is good and he is on the cheap label too.....

Don't worry Rodion I know all about the Howard CD's, I've got 12 of them, and met him last year. On the whole they are very good. Obviously there are weaknesses but he really is tuned in to Liszt superbly.

Magnezium, I think it was a bit impolite to imply that Brendan had a lack of musical understanding when it came to Chopin. Anyone who knows Brendan knows this is just plain wrong! A bit of humility towards a superb performer and a great contributer to this forum is definately needed here.

No, no, no.....an apology isn't necessary by any means. He said that he didn't mean anything by it, so there's no use in crying over milk that was never spilled in the first place.

Smile, everyone.

Ok

Magnezium,

I second Rodion's recommendation of Claudio Arrau's Transcendental Etudes as a recording which may increase your pleasure in Liszt. Until he was 15, Arrau studied with Martin Krause, who himself studied with Liszt intermittently over a period of 30 years. As a consequence, Arrau always treated Liszt as a great composer (in the sense that Beethoven is a great composer) not as a writer of piano showpieces. He recorded the Etudes on Philips when he was in his 70s, but he was still a great virtuoso. What really strikes you is not so much bravura but his amazing tonal range and control of the instrument.

I have to admit a certain ambivalence about Liszt myself. I admire what he did, the way he explored the limits of the piano, of harmony and formal structure, but I don't always enjoy it just as music. For instance, the other night I heard a great performance of the Second Concerto and the Totentanz by the American pianist, Barabra Nissman, who has a very Romantic temperament and bravura technique. It was not so much the virtuoso bluster of the pieces that frustrated me (although the glissandi are a bit cheesy, IMHO), but the way Liszt just hops from one idea to another without any proper development. I know that this is the whole point, and that it is very innovative, but it just doesn't work for me. (I'm not even going to dare discuss the Sonata in this context).

I guess it all just comes down to taste. There's really no need to play Liszt off against Ravel, or Brahms against Wagner (any more).

hey come on... i wasn't talking about Brendan... i've read quite a few of Brendan's posts and i know that he is someone who really has that musical thing that a lot of us chase after... he is highly knowledgeable and definitely a thousand miles ahead of me in every musical aspect, especially maturity... that he actually took time to read my lengthy, crappy post and replied, is a great honour for me...=]

the reason why i made that comment about Chopin was because those lines in Brendan's post triggered those thoughts off... maybe i shouldn't have quoted him... but i just felt i had to get it out of my head... it really has nothing to do with Brendan at all...

about Arrau: i don't know i'm a little nervous about buying an Arrau cd... i've heard him play Chopin and Beethoven, and i'd say it was nothing close to what i'd expected... criticise me for my immaturity once again...=] but since he studied with a pupil of Liszt well i guess it should be ok... but i'd go for Horowitz anytime... of course if there was Ashkenazy i'd go for him anytime...=] i think i'll buy Arrau's...

Ashkenazy has recorded the Transcendental Etudes, and very well too, if it's those you want. I'm not sure if the set is still in print, but I think they've been reissued on one of his discs in the Philips Great Pianists series. Some other pianists whose Liszt recordings I really admire are Lazar Berman, Jorge Bolet, Grigory Ginsburg and, for really over-the-top playing, Gyorgy Cziffra.

If you gravitate toward Horowitz, Arrau may not be for you, their approaches are really very different. I have to agree that Arrau's Chopin is not particularly idiomatic, but his 1960s cycle of the Beethoven sonatas is my favourite, above even Schnabel.

A lot of interesting discussion going on here. I would like to contribute with a few thoughts too.
Firstly about the Gaspard de la nuit:
In the edition I have (Schirmer) it says that Ravel had told his disciple Maurice Delage that his ambition was to write "pieces of transcendental virtuosity for the piano, more difficult than Balakirev's Islamey." This piece in my opinion blends the pianistic difficulty and poetry in a superb way.
I both like Liszt and Chopin since their contribution to piano music is both unmatched.
Recently I have listened to Feux Follets performed by Evgeny Kissin (on the Web). It was simply unbelievable. So I would definitely give a try for his CD.
Rgds,
Hakki.

i don't mean to start another arguement, but why does everyone like kissin so much? i have disliked everything i've heard him play, especially liszt's etudes......maybe that comes from listening to arrau play them though.

the only thing i think Kissin played ok is the Chopin Fantaisie in F Minor, Op. 49... but recordings by Horowitz and Cherkassky are clearly far ahead... i'd love to hear Ashkenazy play this one...



i think Gaspard is still easier than Islamey isn't it? but if Ravel did really say that, then well my whole argument's just been invalidated...hehe...=]

Gaspard is twenty times harder than Islamey, IMO. Islamey is kind of a novelty piece; every time that I've heard it I always end up thinking about something else twenty minutes after the recital. Gaspard, however, is extremely deep, affecting music, and the memory of it always stays with me for a day or two after hearing it (granted that the performance is really good). Also, Gaspard is three pieces and Islamey is one.

About the difficulty, yes it's true that Ravel set out to outdo Islamey, but he accomplishes it in a way that puts technique and music on an equal level.

Brendan

I haven't played Islamey but I have the score and it seems pretty hard, however, I don't feel any motivation towards tackling with that piece. On the other hand Gaspard attracts me like a magnet, mainly because of the beautiful music and the poems it has been built on.
I am not a fan of Kissin either. I only have one of his CDs which was recorded live in Tokyo while he was sixteen. I find his performance pretty good and mature for his age though on this CD. And the pieces he plays on this CD (Rach and Scriabin etudes) inspired me when selecting pieces to study. But the Feux Follets performance I listened to on the Web was interesting simply because I have never heard this piece being played faster than this before (including Richter's).
Rgds,
Hakki.

[ June 12, 2001: Message edited by: Hakki ]